Home Case Index All Cases Insolvency and Bankruptcy Insolvency and Bankruptcy + AT Insolvency and Bankruptcy - 2022 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 772 - AT - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of appeal - time limitation - crystalline stand of the Respondent/Liquidator is that the Appellant / Applicant was not assiduous / meticulous in projecting its claims all through the Liquidation period and furnished its claims lately at the fag end of Liquidation period, especially it had not filed its claim prior to 14.07.2018 - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the Respondent/Liquidator had issued the paper publication inviting the claim from the Stakeholders on 18.06.2018 and the last date for submission of such claim was 14.07.2018. Admittedly, the Appellant/Applicant before the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Chennai Bench, had prayed for condonation of delay of 936 days in claiming the EPF and MP Act, 1952, dues. The Form F, filed by the Appellant’s side, after the beginning of the Liquidation on 20.09.2019 was not accepted by the Respondent/Liquidator. No wonder, the Form G was filed by the Appellant on 02.02.2021. Aspect of delay - HELD THAT:- An unpardonable lackadaisical approach / attitude of the Party in pursuing a matter before the Competent Authority/ Tribunal is not to be accepted. The Law of Limitation being harsh, will affect a Litigant, but it has to be pressed into service with all its vigour and rigour in the considered opinion of this Tribunal - In Law, a Tribunal/ a Court of Law has no power to find out a device in granting Relief to a Party who may appeared to have been hard done by. To put is precisely, an Application for condonation of delay undoubtedly create a jurisdictional fetter against consideration of tangible / substantive matter on merits. A Tribunal cannot determine the sufficiency of cause, apart from the facts pleaded and made out in a given case. Just because the Appellant is a Statutory Organisation, no indulgence or latitude can be shown, since the Law applies to one and all in a level playing field. Appeal against Liquidator’s Decision - HELD THAT:- Section 42 of the I & B Code, 2016, enjoins that as against the decision of the Liquidator either accepting or rejecting the claims, a Creditor may prefer an Appeal before the Adjudicating Authority and it cannot be gainsaid that the process of Liquidation is to be completed, within the prescribed time and conclusion of proceedings in this regard, is to be made within one year as enunciated under I & B Code, 2016. Aim of I & B Code - HELD THAT:- Speed is the essence of I & B Code, 2016. Time Wasted/Lost cannot be revisited/regained. The process of Liquidation is time bound, to be completed within one year in the teeth of the I & B Code, 2016. Undoubtedly, the Code is an inbuilt and self-contained one and the object of the I & B Code, 2016, is that, a time barred Debt cannot be resurrected or given a fresh tenure of life, as opined by this Tribunal. This Tribunal keeping in mind the present facts and circumstances of the instant case, in a conspectus fashion and also considering the submissions of the Appellant side and the stand taken on behalf of the Respondent/Liquidator, comes to a consequent conclusion that the view arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority, (National Company Law Tribunal), Division Bench, Court – I, in dismissing the IA/442/CHE/2021 (in condoning the delay of 936 days in claiming the EPF & MP Act dues) in TCP/413/IB/CB/2017, through its impugned order dated 17.12.2021 is free from legal infirmities. Resultantly, the Appeal fails. Appeal dismissed.
|